Who are “They”? Why Are They Different Than You?
14 Oct, 2012
The title referring to thousands of passionate students and activists, who believe in their cause against tuition hikes, is very excluding, polarizing, and unnecessarily sensationalist.
I am certain The Bull & Bear editors are well aware that this front page would anger many readers and spark discussion surrounding a widely debated issue, which should create some extra hype around the paper. This is a fair strategy but the costs seem not to have been properly waged.
As the former News Editor of the publication I know that the paper has made a conscious effort towards being and objective and unbiased voice on campus. The progress seemed to have been effective in eradicating the prejudice of being a rightist business publication.
Headlines like this one, which are crucially important for the image of the paper, regardless of the subsequent article on the topic, are a step backwards. People who have participated in the protests against the tuition hikes or simply have a bifocal outlook on the issue may feel targeted, excluded, and once again pissed off at the “right-wing Bronfman publication.”
At this point The Bull & Bear is comprised out of a team of about 70 talented and diverse individuals from all faculties, who constitute much more than just a one-sided opinion write-up. Then again, headlines like this can only make one wonder.
Personally, I was against the protests at the beginning and flip-flopped on the issue down the stretch. My standpoint did not change because it was cool at the time to participate or because I wanted students to suffer through summer school, but because ideologically, it was right to me. At the same time, I appreciated and respected the arguments of the alternative and was happy to find peaceful intellectual discourse about the issue. Nevertheless, this headline just confuses me.
Am I one of “them” or should I associate myself more with editor’s point of view? If I am one of them, should I feel judged by the other side?
Ultimately, is it really necessary to polarize and subsequently recreate a hostile atmosphere, especially after the issue has been largely settled? To me, the answer to these questions is No, No, and No. The Bull & Bear staff seems to have a different opinion.
There is enough separation, seclusion, and discrimination with which we are forced to deal with on a daily basis. I find there to be no need to add extra fuel into a dying fire, especially at the cost of the publication’s image, which I respect. As a former editor of The Bull & Bear, I know that this headline does not represent the view of the entire staff. Therefore, I would find it aggravating, if the paper suffered an unnecessary image loss, due to a change in perception of the publication.
- Hugo Margoc, B. Com 2013
The Bull & Bear News Editor, January – April, 2012